Pharmacy First hey fever tablets not received, refusing redelivery or refund

pathsofdarkness

Context:

1. I ordered some hey fever tables on 10/04/2024 using a link from MSE with a debit card.
2. As the package had not been received, I contacted for an update on 21/04 and was told it was marked delivered by Royal Mail on 15/04 and was told to check with my household and neighbours.
3. I was in all day on the 15th and no one came to our door. None of my family have received any packages and neither have any of my immediate neighbours. I popped into my local Royal Mail depot and they don't have my package either.
4. I looked the CitzenAdvice website and it said in this situation that Pharmacy First would be still responsible, so I contacted them asking either for a delivery or a refund under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
5. They responded back the following: "Unfortunately we are unable to look into this further as it is Royal Mail's standard procedure to deliver to a neighbour if possible followed by a safe place and if that is unsuccessful then would be returned to your local sorting office for collection or delivery. In this case they have delivered it to a neighbour or another member of your household.".

What would you advise as being my next steps? I've never made a formal complaint like this under the Consumer Rights Act and it looks like Pharmacy First aren't going to budge.  I've asked (a) for them to tell me how their response complies with the named act, and (b) for them to find out from Royal Mail exactly where my package was delivered to.

If I don't get anywhere, am I allowed to do a charge back in this situation? I've never done that before either and am feeling out of my depth.

Kind regards,
Pat

eskbanker

pathsofdarkness said:
As the package had not been received, I contacted for an update on 21/04 and was told it was marked delivered by Royal Mail on 15/04 and was told to check with my household and neighbours.

[...]

If I don't get anywhere, am I allowed to do a charge back in this situation?

I don't believe so - if RM have recorded it as delivered then my understanding is that this is sufficient for the merchant to defeat a non-delivery chargeback attempt, unfair though that seems.

Okell

Pharmacy First is wrong.

Did you quote s29(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) to them?

That clearly states that goods remain at the trader's risk until they "come into the physical possession" of the consumer.

As Pharmacy First has admitted that RM did not deliver the goods into your physical possession they (Pharmacy First) are liable to provide you with a replacement or a refund.

If the goods have gone "walkabout", that is not your problem.  Pharmacy First needs to sort that out with RM.

You probably can't do a chargeback because the goods "were delivered" for the purposes of chargeback.  (Don't laugh - delivery to the wrong address equals delivery to the correct address under chargeback rules).

If you paid by credit card and the cost was over £100 you might be able to do a s75 claim.

Failing that your only remedy is to sue Pharmacy First

[Edit:  Nothing to stop you trying a chargeback but don't be surprised if the bank rejects it]

Ectophile

There's nothing in the chargeback rules that say that because a company delivered something to somebody, then you lose your right to a chargeback.

Here's Visa's version of chargeback: https://www.visa.co.uk/how-you-pay-matters/chargeback-purchase-disputes.html#2

Okell

Ectophile said:

There's nothing in the chargeback rules that say that because a company delivered something to somebody, then you lose your right to a chargeback.

Here's Visa's version of chargeback: https://www.visa.co.uk/how-you-pay-matters/chargeback-purchase-disputes.html#2

Well that's interesting because as @eskbanker and I have suggested it's been said many times on these pages that proof of delivery to any address will defeat a chargeback claim that is based on non-delivery.

Perhaps somebody like @born_again can clarify as the OP might be able to do a successful chargeback

eskbanker

Ectophile said:

There's nothing in the chargeback rules that say that because a company delivered something to somebody, then you lose your right to a chargeback.

Here's Visa's version of chargeback: https://www.visa.co.uk/how-you-pay-matters/chargeback-purchase-disputes.html#2

Unless I'm seeing something different from what you're intending to share, that's a very high level simple summary of chargeback rather than a detailed explanation of exactly how it works?

It is undoubtedly an issue that it's an opaque scheme where the rules aren't generally published, so difficult for anyone to say with any confidence that it will or won't work, or do you have access to detailed documentation?

However, as above, my understanding, based solely on previous posts by one or more insiders, remains that if a customer asserts non-delivery and the merchant produces a statement from the courier contradicting this, then the card company doesn't take the matter any further and sides with the merchant, resulting in the chargeback failing.  A court may of course take a different view, but with chargeback being a closed industry scheme, rather than something ordained by legislation, its rules are at the card schemes' unilateral discretion....

Okell

My understanding of how chargeback works in relation to delivery disputes is exactly as @eskbanker's.

But that understanding is only based on what has been posted on here by people who I have reason to believe have inside knowledge of how chargeback works, so I have no personal knowledge of it.

The rules - as I understand them at least - seem a bit daft in soem respects...

RefluentBeans

Okell said:

My understanding of how chargeback works in relation to delivery disputes is exactly as @eskbanker's.

But that understanding is only based on what has been posted on here by people who I have reason to believe have inside knowledge of how chargeback works, so I have no personal knowledge of it.

The rules - as I understand them at least - seem a bit daft in soem respects...

I guess it’s the intent of the rules though. There to protect from scams, but when there’s a question of who’s in the right and wrong, they don’t play judge and jury and don’t want to leave the wrong party without money so keep the status quo and let them sort it out via the other mechanisms. Arguably, we don’t want the banking system to interfere too much. 

Okell

RefluentBeans said:

Okell said:

My understanding of how chargeback works in relation to delivery disputes is exactly as @eskbanker's.

But that understanding is only based on what has been posted on here by people who I have reason to believe have inside knowledge of how chargeback works, so I have no personal knowledge of it.

The rules - as I understand them at least - seem a bit daft in soem respects...

I guess it’s the intent of the rules though. There to protect from scams, but when there’s a question of who’s in the right and wrong, they don’t play judge and jury and don’t want to leave the wrong party without money so keep the status quo and let them sort it out via the other mechanisms. Arguably, we don’t want the banking system to interfere too much. 

I'm not sure which part of my post you are commenting on, but do you think that a scheme implemented by the big card providers and basically promoted by them as offering some sort of "consumer protection"  is any good if the consumer can prove that something has been delivered to what is undeniably the wrong address*,  yet the card providers will say that that isn't a good claim because they have "proof of delivery"?  Even though that proof of delivery is clearly to an address* that is not the consumer's?

And no - I don't want the banking system to intrude too much into everyday life, but neither do I want it to provide supposedly "consumer friendly" schemes which are purposefully designed to deny what are legally valid claims.  Rather than trying to get away with doing as little as possible, why not be honest and say "We don't really care if our customer's legal rights  are infringed.  We'll pretend to care but we don't really". 

Why can't they supplement existing legal protections rather than ignoring what the law says?

[Edit:  They don't need, as you say, to play "judge and jury" - the wording of the legislation is quite clear and unambiguous.  If something "does not come into the physical possession" of the consumer, the trader remains liable for it.  Something delivered to the wrong address has clearly not "come into the physical possession of the consumer" and the trader remains liable for it.  Why would it be difficult for chargeback to reflect that legal reality?  Why couldn't they save the customer the trouble of having to argue with the trader?  They don't need to decide anything in any case - it's "res ipsa loquitur" - the thing speaks for itself]  


*  There have been cases on here where items have clearly been delivered to the wrong address because the courier has taken photos identifying the wrong address.

eskbanker

Okell said:
Why can't they supplement existing legal protections rather than ignoring what the law says?

Happy to be corrected but was under the impression that the chargeback rules are either global or at least regional, rather than being aligned to the legislation of individual countries?

Okell

eskbanker said:

Okell said:
Why can't they supplement existing legal protections rather than ignoring what the law says?

Happy to be corrected but was under the impression that the chargeback rules are either global or at least regional, rather than being aligned to the legislation of individual countries?

Fair comment.

But when the banks and card providers are promoting the scheme in the UK, perhaps they should be transparent and honest by explaining that the scheme won't help consumers if traders don't comply with such basic requirements as ensuring that goods are actually delivered to the correct addressee?

To be clear, I agree 100% with your view that it's "an opaque scheme where the rules aren't generally published, so difficult for anyone to say with any confidence that it will or won't work..."  I'm not arguing with you.

I also think it's disingenuous that banks and card providers will treat claims by default as chargebacks even where the dispute is eligible for a s75 claim and the customer has specifically asked for it to be treated as a s75 claim.

We see many threads on here where the OP was under the impression that their card provider had pursued the s75 claim that had been requested, but had instead instituted a chargeback.  When the OP is told that their claim has been rejected (because the bank treated it as a chergeback) the OP is confused because they were sure they had had a valid s75 claim.

An unkind or cynical person might be forgiven for thinking that chargeback had been intentionally devised to mislead customers into thinking that that their bank and card providers  were helping them to pursue their consumer rights, whereas the bank and card providers were really trying to prevent their customers from doing so.