John Lewis incorrect product sent

flaneurs_lobster

Cressida100 said:

I have read a few threads recently on the same subject so when I recently ordered a new phone direct from Samsung I unboxed it in my porch in front of the delivery driver! I felt a bit bad keeping him waiting but he didn't complain. 

I did this recently, the delivery driver said I wasn't the first. He even held my (old) phone which was filming the action.

Should be said that it's sad that this sort of action is necessary, but it was an expensive phone and I wanted to minimise any arguments about "are you sure it was 2 tins of catfood and not a Flip 6 phone"?

DullGreyGuy

Ergates said:

DullGreyGuy said:

You can search on here, there are hundreds of cases against various retailers of high value items being ordered and low value items being received instead. Oddly, almost without exception, each and every case was from a first time poster and yet many regulars here state they use Amazon, JL, Currys and all the other brands the allegations have been raised against.  

That's not really odd.  Cases like this are rare - I wouldn't say there were even "hundreds" on here, and in the context of the millions and millions of on-line orders dispatched by the large retailers it's a tiny proportion.

Most of the posts on here are from first time posters, as most people only come here when they have an issue they want to ask about.

The forum has been going 20 years, I think the 100s is a relatively low estimate. A quick scan of search return threads shows 11 this year about the wrong thing in the box, not obv doesn't include people using more unorthodox terms that the search doesn't pickup so even if you consider the last 10 years, given useage probably lower historically, at that rate it would be in the 100s. 

Would be interested in where you see the stat that most threads are started by first time posters? 

Exodi

robatwork said:

What I would like to add for future googlers is - always film yourself opening and unpackaging phones and anything else delivered of high value. 

Picture is worth 1000 words and a video is worth 1000 pictures. 

This isn't an original idea, but it's often met with pessimism (including myself in that).

Reason being, I'd suggest it's incredibly more suspicious that someone claiming an INAD also happens to have recorded themselves opening it to protect themselves from what is generally an incredibly rare incident.

Likewise it's not that difficult to close/reseal/repackage a box to record a video after you have swapped out the phone. E.g. open the box from the bottom, swap the item, then record yourself opening it from the top.

flaneurs_lobster

Exodi said:

robatwork said:

What I would like to add for future googlers is - always film yourself opening and unpackaging phones and anything else delivered of high value. 

Picture is worth 1000 words and a video is worth 1000 pictures. 

This isn't an original idea, but it's often met with pessimism (including myself in that).

Reason being, I'd suggest it's incredibly more suspicious that someone claiming an INAD also happens to have recorded themselves opening it to prevent what is otherwise an incredibly rare incident.

Likewise it's not that difficult to close/reseal/repackage a box to record a video after you have swapped out the phone. E.g. open the box from the bottom, swap the item, then record yourself opening it from the top.

Fair enough, if that's your opinion, what would you suggest is a better method of securing a positive or better outcome if something has been "INADed" (whatever that means).

I'm only talking about high worth objects here, I'm not going to be filming me opening a packet of batteries. But a phone worth a grand......

And no, it couldn't be delivered or collected or purchased from a Samsung retail store, and any other physical retailer was hundreds of £ more expensive.

Exodi

flaneurs_lobster said:

Exodi said:

robatwork said:

What I would like to add for future googlers is - always film yourself opening and unpackaging phones and anything else delivered of high value. 

Picture is worth 1000 words and a video is worth 1000 pictures. 

This isn't an original idea, but it's often met with pessimism (including myself in that).

Reason being, I'd suggest it's incredibly more suspicious that someone claiming an INAD also happens to have recorded themselves opening it to prevent what is otherwise an incredibly rare incident.

Likewise it's not that difficult to close/reseal/repackage a box to record a video after you have swapped out the phone. E.g. open the box from the bottom, swap the item, then record yourself opening it from the top.

Fair enough, if that's your opinion, what would you suggest is a better method of securing a positive or better outcome if something has been "INADed" (whatever that means).

I'm only talking about high worth objects here, I'm not going to be filming me opening a packet of batteries. But a phone worth a grand......

And no, it couldn't be delivered or collected or purchased from a Samsung retail store, and any other physical retailer was hundreds of £ more expensive.

In my opinion, there is no simple answer (and sorry as I hate being the person whose only input into a conversation is negative) and apologies, INAD is Item Not As Described. The terminology is common to eBay where this type of scam is  more common (but the dynamic is usually the buyer swapping it and reports INAD and then returning the swapped phone).

Of course I understand you're only talking about high worth objects here, you must appreciate 'a phone worth a grand' is exactly the type of item being swapped out in these scams, not 'a packet of batteries'.

My pessimism may be misguided, but I've not heard of anyone successfully convincing a retailer an item has been swapped by providing a video of them opening the box (but I appreciate this practice is not commonplace). My view is if it was generally viewed as concrete evidence, as I said before, it would be relatively easy to exploit by fraudsters.

If the parcel was received perfectly sealed as the OP states, it suggests the theft happened in the distribution centre, which is where I'd direct JL to investigate.

flaneurs_lobster

Exodi said:

In my opinion, there is no simple answer (and sorry as I hate being the person whose only input into a conversation is negative) and apologies, INAD is Item Not As Described. The terminology is common to eBay where this type of scam is  more common (but the dynamic is usually the buyer swapping it and reports INAD and then returning the swapped phone).

Of course I understand you're only talking about high worth objects here, you must appreciate 'a phone worth a grand' is exactly the type of item being swapped out in these scams, not 'a packet of batteries'.

My pessimism may be misguided, but I've not heard of anyone successfully convincing a retailer an item has been swapped by providing a video of them opening the box (but I appreciate this practice is not commonplace). My view is if it was generally viewed as concrete evidence, as I said before, it would be relatively easy to exploit by fraudsters.

If the parcel was received perfectly sealed as the OP states, it suggests the theft happened in the distribution centre, which is where I'd direct JL to investigate.

What's even more depressing and sad (and not a little embarrassing) is single-shot videoing the boxing/wrapping of the PX phone (including the screen showing IMEI) in the Post Office and then continuing the recording (without capturing images of any other person's face including the counter staff, because privacy) as the Recorded Delivery Label is applied and the parcel handed over/receipt received. 

Sam Mendes would have been proud of this little continuous shot movie (filmed by my partner). I'm quite surprised we didn't get thrown out, maybe it happens several times a day?

Completely over the top for £400-worth of trade-in? Pointless since easily faked? Obvious red flag to the recipient if the phone did go missing?

Undervalued

Exodi said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

Exodi said:

robatwork said:

What I would like to add for future googlers is - always film yourself opening and unpackaging phones and anything else delivered of high value. 

Picture is worth 1000 words and a video is worth 1000 pictures. 

This isn't an original idea, but it's often met with pessimism (including myself in that).

Reason being, I'd suggest it's incredibly more suspicious that someone claiming an INAD also happens to have recorded themselves opening it to prevent what is otherwise an incredibly rare incident.

Likewise it's not that difficult to close/reseal/repackage a box to record a video after you have swapped out the phone. E.g. open the box from the bottom, swap the item, then record yourself opening it from the top.

Fair enough, if that's your opinion, what would you suggest is a better method of securing a positive or better outcome if something has been "INADed" (whatever that means).

I'm only talking about high worth objects here, I'm not going to be filming me opening a packet of batteries. But a phone worth a grand......

And no, it couldn't be delivered or collected or purchased from a Samsung retail store, and any other physical retailer was hundreds of £ more expensive.

In my opinion, there is no simple answer (and sorry as I hate being the person whose only input into a conversation is negative) and apologies, INAD is Item Not As Described. The terminology is common to eBay where this type of scam is  more common (but the dynamic is usually the buyer swapping it and reports INAD and then returning the swapped phone).

Of course I understand you're only talking about high worth objects here, you must appreciate 'a phone worth a grand' is exactly the type of item being swapped out in these scams, not 'a packet of batteries'.

My pessimism may be misguided, but I've not heard of anyone successfully convincing a retailer an item has been swapped by providing a video of them opening the box (but I appreciate this practice is not commonplace). My view is if it was generally viewed as concrete evidence, as I said before, it would be relatively easy to exploit by fraudsters.

If the parcel was received perfectly sealed as the OP states, it suggests the theft happened in the distribution centre, which is where I'd direct JL to investigate.

As you say it is not concrete evidence. However civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities so all it needs to do is tip the balance to 51% in the claimant's favour.

You feel having such a video may make the claimant look suspicious? Maybe, maybe not. Judges are generally good at knowing if somebody is lying but of course it is not an exact science!

S4vvyspender

As feared JL are not accepting responsibility sighting the fact they don’t stick that particular brand of powerbank so they wouldn’t make that mistake - ABSOLUTELY FUMING! They cannot prove they were correct or share their evidence which makes me think there is something more to it. I will be proceeding with legal action as I cannot accept this outcome.

if they had supplied the phone they’d be Abel to give me the IMEI number but they haven’t been able to do that and won’t give me the evidence of their internal investigation.

im hoping courts can see through this absolute farce of a customer service response 

voluted

S4vvyspender said:

As feared JL are not accepting responsibility sighting the fact they don’t stick that particular brand of powerbank so they wouldn’t make that mistake - ABSOLUTELY FUMING! They cannot prove they were correct or share their evidence which makes me think there is something more to it. I will be proceeding with legal action as I cannot accept this outcome.

if they had supplied the phone they’d be Abel to give me the IMEI number but they haven’t been able to do that and won’t give me the evidence of their internal investigation.

im hoping courts can see through this absolute farce of a customer service response 

Are they correct? Do they not stock that brand of power bank?

S4vvyspender

They don’t stock it but they won’t prove that the phone was put in the box to be sent out