Currys Iphone - failed delivery

Joolsie123

After buying on Credit, 2 iphone-15's in October last year. It soon became apparent when they WERE delivered there was a major issue.
Currey wanted the phone to be purchased using 2 separate payments. So when a the phones arrived a few days later than promised, they arrived in 2 separate parcel. Both parcels from the outside were identical. When I opened the 1st all was good, when I opened the 2nd I could see instantly the Apple box was damaged and had ink smears on it. When I turned the box upside down I could see the security seal was broken. Opening the box the contents were as expected .. minus an iPhone 15.

We're since spoke the currier, the police (Have a crime number), Citizens advice and written to Curry PC world but to satisfactory resolution.

We ended up buying 3 phones in the end as the phone were 18th birthday presents for my twin sons. With one phone missing we had to buy another for their big day.

Can you provide some guidance on my next steps please? 

Incidentally under the credit agreement the phones don't require to be paid back till March.
Thanks

eskbanker

Joolsie123 said:

written to Curry PC world but to satisfactory resolution

Assuming that's meant to be no satisfactory resolution, what have they said so far?  They're the ones who need to address this for you under consumer rights legislation....

Joolsie123 said:

We're since spoke the currier...

That would be a great name for a delivery service for that particular retailer!

km1500

since you bought them on credit then the credit company are equally liable with Currys and you should go to them and say you have not received the item you paid for and ask for a refund i.e the credits agreement to be cancelled and any deposit paid returned.

if they refuse then you can go to the ombudsman

born_again

km1500 said:

since you bought them on credit then the credit company are equally liable with Currys and you should go to them and say you have not received the item you paid for and ask for a refund i.e the credits agreement to be cancelled and any deposit paid returned.

if they refuse then you can go to the ombudsman

Except retailer can prove delivery.
So can reject, if they don't they could then take OP to court for the cost.

eskbanker

born_again said:

km1500 said:

since you bought them on credit then the credit company are equally liable with Currys and you should go to them and say you have not received the item you paid for and ask for a refund i.e the credits agreement to be cancelled and any deposit paid returned.

if they refuse then you can go to the ombudsman

Except retailer can prove delivery.
So can reject, if they don't they could then take OP to court for the cost.

Sounds like you're describing chargeback, whereas @km1500 clearly means section 75....

km1500

km1500 does indeed mean S75

born_again

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

km1500 said:

since you bought them on credit then the credit company are equally liable with Currys and you should go to them and say you have not received the item you paid for and ask for a refund i.e the credits agreement to be cancelled and any deposit paid returned.

if they refuse then you can go to the ombudsman

Except retailer can prove delivery.
So can reject, if they don't they could then take OP to court for the cost.

Sounds like you're describing chargeback, whereas @km1500 clearly means section 75....

In reality same would apply if they contact retailer, though not very likely. Or OP says what they said in 1st post.

eskbanker

born_again said:

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

km1500 said:

since you bought them on credit then the credit company are equally liable with Currys and you should go to them and say you have not received the item you paid for and ask for a refund i.e the credits agreement to be cancelled and any deposit paid returned.

if they refuse then you can go to the ombudsman

Except retailer can prove delivery.
So can reject, if they don't they could then take OP to court for the cost.

Sounds like you're describing chargeback, whereas @km1500 clearly means section 75....

In reality same would apply if they contact retailer, though not very likely. Or OP says what they said in 1st post.

Not sure what you're getting at with that last comment, but you've always cited chargeback as being less consumer-friendly by virtue of the card schemes making their own rules about proof of delivery, whereas s75 is aligned solely with legislation that has no such stipulations or restrictions?

born_again

In terms of S75, should CC contact retailer & retailer said all delivered & they have proof. It would go the same way as a chargeback. As CC would say there is no breech of T/C given proof of delivery.

eskbanker

born_again said:

In terms of S75, should CC contact retailer & retailer said all delivered & they have proof. It would go the same way as a chargeback. As CC would say there is no breech of T/C given proof of delivery.

As above, my understanding remains that chargeback processes operate to a different standard (as defined by card schemes rather than legislation), and that a supplier being able to demonstrate delivery of an empty package doesn't automatically negate the customer's s75 claim in the way that it might for chargeback.  Obviously much will depend on what evidence is available, and the credibility of competing stories, but there clearly has been a breach of contract if the ordered item wasn't in the package and I can't see how the card company would be obliged to accept the supplier's version of events when processing a valid s75 claim, even though chargeback rules may allow that.

Edit: OP has a credit agreement for this purchase, so it's not a card company as such, i.e. chargeback was never relevant anyway, but the s75 situation should be the same as for a credit card purchase provided the credit agreement complies with the legislative requirements.

born_again

 I can't see how the card company would be obliged to accept the supplier's version of events when processing a valid s75 claim

As S75 is based on holding finance provider jointly and severally liable, then if retailer said it was delivered, they can use that evidence. As such reach the same conclusion as the retailer.

Do you think they would take no notice of pertinent evidence/information that would allow them to avoid paying out?

Harsh on the OP.