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.

John Lewis incorrect product sent

124

Comments

  • voluted
    voluted Posts: 128 Forumite
    100 Posts Name Dropper
    Okell said:
    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.
    But that evidence can work against you as well as for you.

    Filming things you receive or send is a bit weird. A judge may or may not not pick up on it. That may or may not work against you.

    I think the fact that you have raised a claim is enough to convince a judge you are genuine. The video seems to be laying it on a bit thick.
  • I always do click and collect.  You get the advantage of being able to return unwanted goods, but you also get to inspect before you leave the shop.  I tend to order all electricals form JL as they tend to give longer warranties and even though the nearest JL shop is 45 mins from me they do have collection from Waitrose which is just 2 miles away.  worth considering in future
  • If it was swapped when out of the JL network and we assume it may have been the courier(company) how did the courier know it was a high value item?  JL usually send items out in a JL box which is usually a lot larger than the original item.

    Could the box be marked before it leaves the warehouse? To alert someone it contains a high value item.

    Moneysaver
  • Exodi
    Exodi Posts: 3,419 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    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. 
    Sorry but this is not strictly true.

    I work as the Sales Director for a manufacturer and we have a commercial agreement with John Lewis (have had one for many, many years) and we download orders from JL and despatch directly to the customer from our warehouse. Goods are very much picked and packed manually by us, though the customers contract remains directly with John Lewis. This does mean a bit of back and forth when a customer queries delivery to JL, who query delivery to us, who respond to JL, who responds to the customer, but it works.

    We do not ship iPhones for JL, but if our packing staff were to be accused of swapping products, I don't think it would be completely impossible and we probably would not be able to prove it either way (just being honest).

    That said, we ship haberdashery to John Lewis and putting it bluntly, I suspect people are less inclined to steal a sewing bag than an iPhone. I can totally appreciate that a facility responsible for shipping high value consumer electronics may well be the type of high security operation screech_78 describes.

    I would mention though that John Lewis has long been in a restricting crisis and I have lost count of the number of contacts I have gone through in the last couple of years. I suspect JL is not 'All distribution centres and service buildings are owned and used solely by JL' and at least partly reliant on 3PL's.

    In fact, the use of a 3PL looks very much the case here, given JL claim they do not supply the particular product the iPhone was switched with - whereas it's possible that a 3PL handling consumer electronics could have.
    Know what you don't
  • Exodi said:
    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. 
    Sorry but this is not strictly true.

    I work as the Sales Director for a manufacturer and we have a commercial agreement with John Lewis (have had one for many, many years) and we download orders from JL and despatch directly to the customer from our warehouse. Goods are very much picked and packed manually by us, though the customers contract remains directly with John Lewis. This does mean a bit of back and forth when a customer queries delivery to JL, who query delivery to us, who respond to JL, who responds to the customer, but it works.

    We do not ship iPhones for JL, but if our packing staff were to be accused of swapping products, I don't think it would be completely impossible and we probably would not be able to prove it either way (just being honest).

    That said, we ship haberdashery to John Lewis and putting it bluntly, I suspect people are less inclined to steal a sewing bag than an iPhone. I can totally appreciate that a facility responsible for shipping high value consumer electronics may well be the type of high security operation screech_78 describes.

    I would mention though that John Lewis has long been in a restricting crisis and I have lost count of the number of contacts I have gone through in the last couple of years. I suspect JL is not 'All distribution centres and service buildings are owned and used solely by JL' and at least partly reliant on 3PL's.

    In fact, the use of a 3PL looks very much the case here, given JL claim they do not supply the particular product the iPhone was switched with - whereas it's possible that a 3PL handling consumer electronics could have.
    Ok, yes. Conscious of deviating from OP’s issue but there are many items that are supplier direct and the delivery options on the JL website clearly state they will be delivered by the supplier. 

    But, that isn’t the case for an iPhone or any Apple products for that matter. They’re held in stock and despatched from their own DC (Magna Park). 

    The main DC in itself is exactly how I described it. I know as I’ve stood in it. 
  • John Lewis have stated again they won’t order a replacement or refund without showing any proof of their investigation but have reported it to action Fraud - so are they admitting fraudulent activity took place??  
  • John Lewis have stated again they won’t order a replacement or refund without showing any proof of their investigation but have reported it to action Fraud - so are they admitting fraudulent activity took place??  
    I think John Lewis have dobbed you in to the rozzers. 
  • If that’s the case I’d like to see the proof they have 
  • If that’s the case I’d like to see the proof they have 
    They don't have any proof, only evidence, and the evidence they have is that all of their systems show that they dispatched and delivered the correct item.  Presumably they think you or a third party have defrauded them, so it's logical that they report it.  I don't see that it detracts from any legal case you bring.
  • Yes that’s what I think. I’ve started pre-action letter 
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
  • 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.6K Life & Family
  • 254K 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.