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

pathsofdarkness

I know but I just feel so good right now! If they get my money back then so be it but today is a good day for me (I've been having a really bad slump lately so this victory, even if temporary, means a lot to me)   

Kim_13

If they do challenge it, point out that Pharmacy First choose the carrier, so they chose to accept Royal Mail’s standard procedure and cannot use that to remove your rights. As a trader, they either have to use a carrier who will only return the goods to the depot/sorting office if they cannot deliver to you or to a person nominated by you or accept that they are liable in the rare situations where the customer cannot recover a parcel that was delivered elsewhere. Pharmacy First had your phone number so it could have been used to get you to identify such a person, but as you were not contacted to do this, the item was not delivered as required under the Consumer Rights Act and the risk remains with Pharmacy First.

How they can think that Royal Mail’s standard procedure is equivalent to being nominated by you beggars belief. If you had nominated a person, they or Royal Mail would know where the tablets are!

I’m guessing from the contents that this is a standard accidentally put it through the wrong letterbox scenario, as presumably the package wasn’t big enough for someone’s being out or otherwise to be an issue. I’ve had to point out a few times to delivery people that the parcel they’ve handed me isn’t mine and they want the house over there. Most are honest but others won’t be or might just bin it with the junk mail/mark undelivered and pop it back in the box to try and alert RM to the fact that a mistake has been made.

Okell

pathsofdarkness said:

I know but I just feel so good right now! If they get my money back then so be it but today is a good day for me (I've been having a really bad slump lately so this victory, even if temporary, means a lot to me)   

Well done.  As others have advised don't spend it all at once(!) as PF may still challenge it

Okell

pathsofdarkness said:

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.

As eskbanker has said it isn't possible for a trader's T&Cs to exclude their liability under the Consumer rights Act, so PF are talking absolute rubbish about this.

I know you've won the chargeback - at least for now - but if it makes you feel any better you could complain to CAB that PF are misleading consumers by misstating the law, and you could ask CAB to pass your complaint onto Trading Standards.

It could be argued that by doing this PF are not only misleading consumers as to their statutory rights, but they might also be committing an offence under the Unfair Trading Regulations.  Those regulations are policed and enforced by Trading Standards but they don't do so proactively.  They only take action if enough people complain.

But bear in mind that if you do take the trouble to raise it with CAB/TS it won't help you as an individual even if the bank does reverse the chargeback.  TS don't get involved in consumer disputes.

Kim_13

Also a possibility - as Pharmacy First do not appear to have provided you with the tracking link, so much so that you had to chase them with no idea of what was going on when your order did not materialise - it may be that they don't have any tracking information and are bluffing to try to get you to leave it as it is 'only' £6.49. In this scenario they would have nothing to challenge the chargeback with.

Okell

Am I the only one thinking it sadly ironic that the OP only bought from Pharmacy First because MSE show them as a best buy?

I don't know if it's  or 

born_again

Time for MSE to have a support your local high street retailer. 

Okell

born_again said:

Time for MSE to have a support your local high street retailer. 

That's a good idea.

I think buying everything cheap of the internet at the expense of local businesses is - in the long run - a self-defeating exercise.

(I know JM Keynes said in the long run we are all dead, but in this case I mean within our own lifetimes...)

Jumblebumble

pathsofdarkness said:

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.
  

( I am aware you have had a cash back but just in case this is reversed)

The Assistant manager is an Imbecele
They are telling you where the parcel was delivered when in fact they have absolutly no idea of what actually happened but are simply describing how the process should work.
A response to them of "How do you know?" would be appropriate