Brown Paper Delivered Instead of iPhone 16 Pro Max

pallyman

I recently bought a phone from Three,it came in a anti tamper box which was very hard to open,if suppliers used these for high value items it would reduce this unless it happened in the warehouse.

samcathe

pallyman said:

I recently bought a phone from Three,it came in a anti tamper box which was very hard to open,if suppliers used these for high value items it would reduce this unless it happened in the warehouse.

Exactly my thought. A friend of mine showed me how his iPhone was package when he bought it, it is virtually impossible for anyone to tamper with it. 

samcathe

Here is the last message I received from them after requesting for ADR. My bank has not responded to my dispute yet. I have read about financial ombudsman on this website. I am just trying to push from every angle as this has been so difficult for me. Please I need expert advise on this. I can't be paying for a service I did not receive.

Hello,
We looked into your order. AMZN_UK has confirmed the shipment you reported as lost was delivered to you in good condition. As a result, we will not be issuing a replacement or a refund for the contents of that shipment.

To learn more about our policies, go to "Amazon.co.uk Conditions of Use & Sale":
We are sorry that we have not been able to resolve this matter to your satisfaction and that you feel the need to contact Legal Team in relation to your order. We will not be able to comment further on this issue.

Once we receive notification of the issue from your Legal Counsel, we will respond to them directly.
We are unable to offer you any additional action on this matter. We appreciate you reaching out and hope to see you again soon.

powerful_Rogue

samcathe said:

Here is the last message I received from them after requesting for ADR. My bank has not responded to my dispute yet. I have read about financial ombudsman on this website. I am just trying to push from every angle as this has been so difficult for me. Please I need expert advise on this. I can't be paying for a service I did not receive.

Hello,
We looked into your order. AMZN_UK has confirmed the shipment you reported as lost was delivered to you in good condition. As a result, we will not be issuing a replacement or a refund for the contents of that shipment.

To learn more about our policies, go to "Amazon.co.uk Conditions of Use & Sale":
We are sorry that we have not been able to resolve this matter to your satisfaction and that you feel the need to contact Legal Team in relation to your order. We will not be able to comment further on this issue.

Once we receive notification of the issue from your Legal Counsel, we will respond to them directly.
We are unable to offer you any additional action on this matter. We appreciate you reaching out and hope to see you again soon.

Amazon are not part of any ADR scheme and this is not within the remit of the finicial ombudsman.

Failing your bank not being able to assist, your only course of action now is legal action.

born_again

A_Geordie said:

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

Interesting one on "Not as described" Might work, but Amazon could contest on the basis of what was sent out. As they should have proof at their end. Or simply not contest & go legal to recover cost.

Absolutely - I wasn't asserting that a 'not as described' chargeback claim was a slam-dunk, guaranteed to succeed, but simply challenging the assertion that it would automatically fail if the retailer has proof of delivery.  It would obviously still need to go through the usual process of claim and then assessment of any response from the merchant....

I can confirm that, after reading the Visa Rules on chargeback, reason code 13.1 is for goods not received and 13.3 for goods not as described. For Mastercard, reason code 53/4853 is typically used for both defective/not as described and goods not provided.

My understanding is that if the customer bank decides to refuse a refund based on the evidence provided by the seller's bank - which could simply be evidence of that the package was delivered (but no evidence of the weight), the customer technically has an option to challenge their bank's decision what is known as arbitration, which essentially means the card scheme provider will make a final determination.

Of course this also comes down to how the bank describes/puts forward the dispute which could dictate the response. If the bank made an error in raising the chargeback such as the wrong code, one might argue that they should be held responsible if rejected.

On a non receipt there is no contesting if retailer provides proof of delivery. That is the end of the case. Weight etc makes no difference. 🤷‍♀️
Not as described, might be contested back by customer bank. But regulations do not really cover cases like this. (more ordered blue & received Red) 
Never taken that route in these cases, as it is not really how the regs are written. So how Visa/Mastercard would view it is had to say. 
In old days it was our decision to which chargeback to use, not it is customer answer into system & you get the chargeback to use or not...
Hate it.. Actually takes longer to do, as you have to filter the info given from customer to ensure you do not get a "No Chargeback Option"

A_Geordie

born_again said:

On a non receipt there is no contesting if retailer provides proof of delivery. That is the end of the case. Weight etc makes no difference. 🤷‍♀️
Not as described, might be contested back by customer bank. But regulations do not really cover cases like this. (more ordered blue & received Red) 
Never taken that route in these cases, as it is not really how the regs are written. So how Visa/Mastercard would view it is had to say. 
In old days it was our decision to which chargeback to use, not it is customer answer into system & you get the chargeback to use or not...
Hate it.. Actually takes longer to do, as you have to filter the info given from customer to ensure you do not get a "No Chargeback Option"

I have to confess I am not an expert on this and I am only going from my limited experience in a legal advisory role in a handful of disputes. It was my understanding that it was possible for the customer bank or the merchant bank to challenge the dispute and file an arbitration request. There were some very limited status codes that Visa/Mastercard indicated in the rules that could not be disputed such as chip & pin but I don't recall that being the case for non-receipt of goods if the merchant provided proof of delivery. 

If I recall, there may have been a charge applicable by going down the arbitration route which is perhaps why most banks/merchants may be unwilling to take it that far. Obviously the chargeback scheme is not a statutory right but rather a by-product of the relevant bank signing up to the card scheme rules so the customer might well think that it is their right to pursue the challenge to arbitration.

Food for thought: Does a chargeback confer a benefit on the cardholder by virtue of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 since they are part of a class of members in which the benefit is intended to provide to those class of members? Who knows, I don't think it's ever been challenged before. 

Regardless, I think the OP needs to align themselves with the fact that they may need to go down the legal route against Amazon. There's plenty of hearsay evidence through news reports and articles to suggest that this kind of thing is not a one-off but is occurring more often especially since Amazon assigns a one time code for valuable products. Adding to the fact that the Consumer Rights Act provides that the risk in the goods (not the parcel/packaging) remains with Amazon until the consumer comes into physical possession, it would have to be up to Amazon to prove the goods physically came into possession, against the backdrop of those media reports that parcels are regularly intercepted before they reach the customer's hands.

I reckon Amazon would fold at some point during legal proceedings, maybe at the cost of the OP's account being banned/blacklisted.

eskbanker

born_again said:
On a non receipt there is no contesting if retailer provides proof of delivery. That is the end of the case. Weight etc makes no difference. 🤷‍♀️

Not as described, might be contested back by customer bank. But regulations do not really cover cases like this. (more ordered blue & received Red) 
Never taken that route in these cases, as it is not really how the regs are written. So how Visa/Mastercard would view it is had to say.

Is there anything that you're able to share about these regulations, in terms of their actual wording?  It frustrates me that there's so little transparency in this area - I get that they're non-statutory and are entirely controlled by the card schemes but it seems to me that greater clarity would help all parties.

Consumer-oriented material, such as that published by the likes of MSE and Which, makes a clear distinction between non-delivery and 'not as described', but if that's not an accurate representation of how the regulations are written then it would be useful to be able to view the actual wording of the latter, especially if (as suggested in an earlier post) Mastercard are seeking to remove that differentiation by combining both into one reason code!

Alderbank

eskbanker said:

born_again said:
On a non receipt there is no contesting if retailer provides proof of delivery. That is the end of the case. Weight etc makes no difference. 🤷‍♀️

Not as described, might be contested back by customer bank. But regulations do not really cover cases like this. (more ordered blue & received Red) 
Never taken that route in these cases, as it is not really how the regs are written. So how Visa/Mastercard would view it is had to say.

Is there anything that you're able to share about these regulations, in terms of their actual wording? 

Here is the Mastercard Chargeback Guide, all 789 pages.

https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/chargeback-guide.pdf

@born_again has been professionally trained in the use and interpretation of this stuff, and I have always been happy to accept his explanations aimed at lay people like myself.

eskbanker

Alderbank said:

eskbanker said:

born_again said:
On a non receipt there is no contesting if retailer provides proof of delivery. That is the end of the case. Weight etc makes no difference. 🤷‍♀️

Not as described, might be contested back by customer bank. But regulations do not really cover cases like this. (more ordered blue & received Red) 
Never taken that route in these cases, as it is not really how the regs are written. So how Visa/Mastercard would view it is had to say.

Is there anything that you're able to share about these regulations, in terms of their actual wording? 

Here is the Mastercard Chargeback Guide, all 789 pages.

https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/chargeback-guide.pdf

@born_again has been professionally trained in the use and interpretation of this stuff, and I have always been happy to accept his explanations aimed at lay people like myself.

Yes, I've seen that merchant guide document, but don't believe it really addresses the question relating to how the regulations themselves are written, in the specific context of what qualifies as goods not being as described.

And I'm certainly not seeking to cast any aspersions about any poster but am naturally 'trust-but-verify' cautious and reluctant to be in a position of needing to rely on any individual and their representation of formal documentation, so it's more a criticism of the lack of Visa/Mastercard transparency than anyone on here.

Edit: as far as I can see, the merchant guide suggests:

Goods and services did not conform to their description. Examples include, but are not limited to:
– The cardholder claims that the quality or workmanship of the product is not as described.
– The cardholder claims that the specified color, size, or quantity is not as described.

which seems pretty broad to me.

born_again

eskbanker said:

eskbanker said:

born_again said:
On a non receipt there is no contesting if retailer provides proof of delivery. That is the end of the case. Weight etc makes no difference. 🤷‍♀️

Not as described, might be contested back by customer bank. But regulations do not really cover cases like this. (more ordered blue & received Red) 
Never taken that route in these cases, as it is not really how the regs are written. So how Visa/Mastercard would view it is had to say.

Is there anything that you're able to share about these regulations, in terms of their actual wording?  It frustrates me that there's so little transparency in this area - I get that they're non-statutory and are entirely controlled by the card schemes but it seems to me that greater clarity would help all parties.

Consumer-oriented material, such as that published by the likes of MSE and Which, makes a clear distinction between non-delivery and 'not as described', but if that's not an accurate representation of how the regulations are written then it would be useful to be able to view the actual wording of the latter, especially if (as suggested in an earlier post) Mastercard are seeking to remove that differentiation by combining both into one reason code!

Visa regs are not published online that I'm aware off. Last paper version a few years ago was over & 12 hefty volumes, that just sat in cupboard collecting dust. Now hidden behind Visa site that is restricted to banks. 

TBH. The regs are supposed to be clear & concise with no ambiguity. Yet we can ask our tech reps & get a different answer depending on which way the winds blow.
Reminds me of wading through old style T/C written by some lawyer that has no actual understanding of the regulations.

So often we just make our own decision & hope for the best.

So in some cases it all depends on getting a rep who is prepared to take a chance on a chargeback & hope that retailer does not contested.
Personally I will try to help a customer, but others will not as they can not make the regs fit a chargeback,
I guess with a month left to retirement, I don't care. But will still get in in track what is going on from friends.