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

eskbanker

Okell said:

But when the banks and card providers are promoting the scheme in the UK...

Not sure it's really promoted as such, is it?  But yes, we're on the same page re opacity.

Okell said:
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.

As above, I think this comes down to contention between global chargeback rules and UK legislation (CCA s75), and, when the former entails recovery of funds from the merchant's bank while the latter has to be funded by the card company from their own pockets, that's a regrettable conflict of interest that's only ever going to play out one way.

I do agree that card companies should make it clear to claimants that they're prioritising chargeback (which, to be fair, will often be better for the consumer) over s75, and also that failure of one doesn't preclude the other.

Okell said:
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.

I don't subscribe to that myself, especially in the context of s75 being a very UK-specific provision - chargeback undoubtedly has its flaws (as does s75), but the delivery to wrong address scenario is a pretty niche one in the grand scheme of things.  I recall discussing this on a previous thread and have just found it, from a year ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6442930/deposit

pathsofdarkness

Okell said:

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.

Thank you everyone for your responses, and it's been interesting to read the discussion on the charge back situation.

UPDATE: Thank you Okell, I have gone back to Pharmacy First with this and said:

• I have never been in physical possession of the hey fever tables and I have not identified another person for them to be delivered to, nor an alternative safe place. Therefore you are in breach of s29(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which states: "The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of  (a)the consumer, or (b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.". Please advise how you will resolve this situation in relation to this legislation?

An assistant manager responded:

• In this case b) has been actioned as per Royal Mail standard procedure. They have either delivered the parcel to another member of your household or with a neighbour.
  

So looks like they aren't going to redeliver or refund me because they don't think they are in breach of the law, when they clearly are. Is this something I can report them to Trading Standards for?

pathsofdarkness

Update 2: I asked them for a final response and they have said this:

• As previously stated we are unable to look into this further as Royal Mail have delivered the parcel. In addition, this is stated in the terms & conditions of our website which must be agreed to at the time of placing the order:
  
  "If Royal Mail attempt to deliver your parcel and you are not available to accept the parcel, Royal Mail will operate under their standard procedure to either deliver the parcel to another member of your household or with a neighbour. We are not liable if you are unavailable to accept the parcel and Royal Mail deliver this to a neighbour or another member of your household. Royal Mail will make every attempt to deliver the parcel rather than return it back to your local sorting office as per their standard operating procedure which is outside of our control."
  

Apparently this is in their terms and conditions and so does that mean s29(2) of the Consumer Rights Act will not apply? If so, that means I can't report them to Trading Standards, nor can I attempt a Charge Back?

Feeling a little downhearted that they can get away with this kind of thing as I've don't nothing wrong.

eskbanker

The good news is that their Ts & Cs can't override your statutory rights, so, regardless of what their terms state, the CRA provisions about risk passing still apply.

However, the bad news is that if they're not playing ball, your escalation options are limited:

• as above, it seems unlikely that chargeback would apply
• section 75 might, if you paid by credit card and the goods satisfied the £100 per item threshold
• Trading Standards is a non-starter, as their remit doesn't involve direct intervention in disputes between consumers and businesses, so wouldn't help recover your money

This really just leaves small claims court action, if the value of the order warrants this or you feel strongly enough about the principle....

born_again

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 get that from a consumer point of view, but the card providers are sat between retailer & consumer. So  have to be seen as fair to both parties.
If they sided with consumers in these cases & ignored a retailers proof of delivery, then retailer would stop using the card providers.
Hence if one side can prove delivery, then that suits the card regulations.

So that is how it works. You can try a chargeback, but do not be surprised if you are redebited. Or if the company does not contest a claim for the funds via other means or simply they will not deal with you again 🤷‍♀️

I would pop back to RM office & ask for the GPS location it was delivered to. Might give a clue as to where it went.

born_again

If I can harp back to the old Maestro days, there were 3 chargebacks.
Non receipt of goods (International only)
Cancelled recuring payment (needed proof from retailer it was cancelled)
Fraud transaction.
So simple in them days. You basically told people sorry, nothing we can do in cases like this.

Then Visa came along with all these chargebacks. 6 weeks classroom training to learn them all. When the regs were published they used to run to 12 volumes, not thin ones either. Updated twice a year. Also regulations are different between various regions around the world. But we work by the ones in the UK. 

pathsofdarkness

Looks like I'm going  to have to write this off. It was only a small amount of money (about £6) but I was just so annoyed that they can claim to have delivered something to someone else but not tell me who has it (or which address) so I can get it back.

I'll do the Charge Back (through Revolut) but with the expectation it will fail but at least it'll make me feel like I tried.

I won't bother with Trading Standards if it's outside their remit and the Small Claims court isn't worth it for an tiny amount of money. Looks like my only option is never to use Pharmacy First again. 

It makes me wonder just how safe it is to order things online if they seller can just say "it was delivered to a neighbour" but not tell me which one and the only option ultimately would be the Small Claims court, which for small amounts isn't worth the time other than on principle I suppose.

Anyway, thanks everyone, I really appreciate the input

Time2Go_25

For what it's worth at least make sure you leave them a suitable review.

pathsofdarkness

Well, you guys are not going to believe this but I made the charge back request this morning to Revolut and they gave me my money back:

After careful investigation of the dispute request you submitted on 26/04/2024, we've concluded that your claim is valid. As of the date of this email, the funds credited to your account on 26/04/2024 have been made permanent as per the table below:

Transaction Date
10/04/2024
Merchant Name
Www.pharmacyfirst.co.u
Transaction Amount
£6.49
Amount Refunded
£6.49

Amazing! Now, from the conversation in this thread I guess it's possible for the seller's bank to dispute this and get their money back (I think!) but for now, I feel amazing!!!!

BTW, I did leave them a negative review on Trust Pilot and they responded with basically that I hadn't checked with my neighbours (even though I told them several times that I did). 

born_again

pathsofdarkness said:

Well, you guys are not going to believe this but I made the charge back request this morning to Revolut and they gave me my money back:

After careful investigation of the dispute request you submitted on 26/04/2024, we've concluded that your claim is valid. As of the date of this email, the funds credited to your account on 26/04/2024 have been made permanent as per the table below:

Transaction Date
10/04/2024
Merchant Name
Www.pharmacyfirst.co.u
Transaction Amount
£6.49
Amount Refunded
£6.49

Amazing! Now, from the conversation in this thread I guess it's possible for the seller's bank to dispute this and get their money back (I think!) but for now, I feel amazing!!!!

BTW, I did leave them a negative review on Trust Pilot and they responded with basically that I hadn't checked with my neighbours (even though I told them several times that I did). 

They do, but retailer has  45 days to contest..

So don't go spending it all now 🤣