We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

John Lewis incorrect product sent

135

Comments

  • Just because they don’t stock it doesn’t mean someone in their warehouse couldn’t have swapped it out. With high value items they have photographic evidence to show products being packed which they have failed to show me 
  • DullGreyGuy
    DullGreyGuy Posts: 15,710 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    They don’t stock it but they won’t prove that the phone was put in the box to be sent out 
    So... what was in the outer JL box? A brand new powerbank in its retail packaging? A used powerbank just loose in the box? An iPhone box but inside the iPhone box was a powerbank instead? If it's the last option does the power bank look new or used? 

    Do JL do their own warehousing and fulfillment for web orders? I've no idea. Certainly some do outsource and if JL do then it opens up the possibility that another merchant in the same facility does sell that powerbank and so more possibility of simple human error rather than sticky fingers in the warehouse. 
  • They don’t stock it but they won’t prove that the phone was put in the box to be sent out 
    So... what was in the outer JL box? A brand new powerbank in its retail packaging? A used powerbank just loose in the box? An iPhone box but inside the iPhone box was a powerbank instead? If it's the last option does the power bank look new or used? 

    Do JL do their own warehousing and fulfillment for web orders? I've no idea. Certainly some do outsource and if JL do then it opens up the possibility that another merchant in the same facility does sell that powerbank and so more possibility of simple human error rather than sticky fingers in the warehouse. 
    No outsourcing. All distribution centres and service buildings are owned and used solely by JL. 

    OP, your only option is small claims and hope they settle. 

    There is so much fraud with Apple products that they’re happier for it to go to small claims than risk refunding a fraudster (I’m not saying that’s what you are).

    The distribution centres have very little human involvement with packing. Almost all picking and packing is handled by machines and items are sent down conveyor belts to be packed by another machine. Weight is usually recorded at time of packing and the DC’s are littered with CCTV. Not saying it’s impossible, but very difficult for an employee to switch something without being noticed. 
  • Inside the box was an unopened powerbank box that you can buy from Amazon…

    am trying to ascertain how much an iphone16 weighs with its original packaging… if anyone could provide me with that information that would be super helpful!
  • Just because they don’t stock it doesn’t mean someone in their warehouse couldn’t have swapped it out. With high value items they have photographic evidence to show products being packed which they have failed to show me 
    No, however it does prove that this wasn't a mistake that JL made.

    It is somewhat weird that someone would sneak in an unopened powerbank, swap it out and then sneak the phone out. It seems like it would increase the chances of being caught if you have to sneak things in as well as out. It also makes it look all the more suspicious if they're caught sneaking an unopened product in. It's pretty hard to argue, "oops I forgot to take my power bank out of my pocket" if it's unused in the box.

    Either way, since this is clearly not a JL mistake, and they are not happy to accept that one of their employees or their courier swapped it out, you're left with convincing a judge in small claims.
  • Or that they do have that powerbank in their warehouse and their automated systems picked it up and packed it. I can’t see how else this could have happened - especially if they do their own fulfilment and distribution
  • Ergates
    Ergates Posts: 2,790 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Or that they do have that powerbank in their warehouse and their automated systems picked it up and packed it. I can’t see how else this could have happened - especially if they do their own fulfilment and distribution
    If they don't sell or stock it, why would it be in their warehouse?
  • How did it get in the box then?
  • How did it get in the box then?
    Well, there's the period where it was not in the warehouse, but not yet in your possession...
  • Okell
    Okell Posts: 2,102 Forumite
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Exodi 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!


    I agree.

    The OP needs evidence to support his claim that he received the wrong product.  Videoing the package being opened is certainly evidence.    The fact a determined fraudster could fake the video is neither here nor there unless you assume the consumer is faking it in the first place.

    It might not convince the retailer - who has a vested interest in disbelieving the consumer - but I don't think courts work like that and it might well be enough to tip the judge in favour of the consumer.

    Similarly I think it's a good idea to video stuff being returned.  I don't see it as suspicious at all - unless you first assume the consumer is faking it.  Again I don't think civil courts work on that basis at all.  Cumulative evidence is all to the good.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.