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

1235»

Comments

  • robatwork
    robatwork Posts: 7,235 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    I always look at posts like yours (no judgement on your veracity as nobody here knows if you're as straight as a die or a scammer) from both sides. 

    John Lewis may well not know what happened to your phone. They could have dispatched an iphone and now hearing you didn't get an iphone. What's 100% sure is that they have suffered from attempted fraud before, where people claim to have not got what was ordered even though they did. So you can't blame them from being sceptical.

    What fraudsters don't tend to do by and large, is proceed all the way to court. So it could well be their "policy" to not just roll over and refund/replace, but only do so when on the court steps.

    Let us know how it goes, I suspect they will settle but not until you've got much further into the action.
  • appreciate your post and well aware that there are people out there that make scamming a way of life which makes it 10000% difficult for genuine people to resolve these kind of issues. 

    It will be a long drawn out process which I’m willing to undertake so let’s hope this is a positive outcome for those genuine people that have been a victim of this same issue.

    i will keep you posted…
  • Exodi
    Exodi Posts: 3,428 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 26 November 2024 pm30 3:00PM
    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?
    Unfortunately I'd probably answer maybe, yes and probably.

    It's a shame because from what you've said I suspect we are quite alike, as I worry about this sort of thing, and could see myself thinking of doing similar things.

    But as before, I'm dubious as to whether it really helps with anything should the worse happen.
    Undervalued said:
    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 watched a series in the past called 'Claimed and Shamed' and it covers insurance fraud.

    You would routinely see this strange paradox where:

    Someone would call up reporting an item had been stolen or perished in a fire or whatever, and when asked if they have images or evidence to prove they owned the items they are claiming for, would often struggle or reply something along the lines of "who takes pictures of their TV?".

    Occasionally you'd encounter someone else claiming their house was burgled or burned down or whatever, and when asked if they can provide images or evidence to prove what they are claiming for, incredibly they happened to have very recent pictures of every single high value item they own.

    The latter they would usually end up being outed as fraudulent and they'd get caught with the items a few weeks later.

    Now before the conclusion you could look at this second individual and marvel at what a well-organised and precautious person they are. If you're a bit more cynical, you could suggest it is incredibly convenient or coincidental that someone would happen to gather evidence to protect themselves against what is usually an incredibly rare event.

    That's kind of how I feel about filming yourself opening a box to discover if the product is NAD.

    Which is frustrating and I am mentally conflicted on it - because I have full sympathy for the OP if their situation is genuine, having something like that happen is my worst nightmare and I generally try to prevent risks wherever possible (e.g. I've never deleted an email, I have a memory stick with pretty much any document or letter on it, etc). I just don't know whether filming yourself adds any value (because it can be faked, because it could be perceived as suspicious, and because I haven't seen any retailers swayed by it).

    I would be interested to hear if it's ever been beneficial in court. I'm probably just pessimistic.
    Know what you don't
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.