Brown Paper Delivered Instead of iPhone 16 Pro Max

samcathe

A_Geordie 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. 
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.

I really don't care about my account being banned/blacklisted at this moment. All I want is a refund or replacement. I can't imagine paying for goods I am not using. It is really going to be a night mare.
Do you have any idea maybe my 7 years old son can be a witness in the court of law? My children were there when I opened the package. Because Police has come back to me to say they can't do anything since I have no witness or CCTV camera.
Although, I have not heard from my bank, they claim to get back to me within 7 days. I am just preparing myself for the worst case scenario. 
I have also read about small claims court. Is that an option I can consider as well? Thanks

Aylesbury_Duck

samcathe said:

A_Geordie 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. 
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.

I really don't care about my account being banned/blacklisted at this moment. All I want is a refund or replacement. I can't imagine paying for goods I am not using. It is really going to be a night mare.
Do you have any idea maybe my 7 years old son can be a witness in the court of law? My children were there when I opened the package. Because Police has come back to me to say they can't do anything since I have no witness or CCTV camera.
Although, I have not heard from my bank, they claim to get back to me within 7 days. I am just preparing myself for the worst case scenario. 
I have also read about small claims court. Is that an option I can consider as well? Thanks

You'd be prepared to put your seven year old son in court to testify about a stolen phone?  I think that's unnecessary.

This isn't going to get to a court like that.  If your bank can't help, then you need to send Amazon a letter before action, demanding the delivery of the phone you ordered or a refund, and giving them 14 days to do so.   If they don't respond as you'd like, then you commence the small claims process.  You'll have to pay £80 for the court fee and then await a court date.  It's not going to be a quick process, but Amazon may act before it gets that far.

eskbanker

born_again said:

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.

Thanks for your candour - if other institutions manage the process in a similar way to yours, then that would seem to confirm that not only does the consumer have minimal visibility of if and how their issuing bank might deal with a chargeback claim, but the apparently significant element of discretion and interpretation makes it all a bit of a lottery!

It is what it is and all that, and I'm sure you understand that I'm not having a pop at you in any way, but it's far from ideal that on the consumer rights board, most issues can be discussed by reference to visible documentation, whether that's the legislation, its associated guidance, Ts & Cs of contracts, etc, but the world of chargeback remains so capricious and mysterious - as above, I do get that it's controlled by the card schemes rather than being a statutory right but from the consumer's perspective it's anything but "clear & concise with no ambiguity"!

born_again

I take no offence.👍& can but agree with you.

Sadly as they are card regulations & over & above consumer rights. They feel happy that they are not for public consumption. Bit like PayPal. 
We keep being told that the regs are very clear & concise. Sadly we think as mud... Given different people can read them in a different way. 

So yep, do feel for some customers who get a raw deal. Such as the OP here. As the card regulations were never written for cases like this.
They simply aim to put both consumer & retailer on a equal footing where disputes are concerned.  

To me & others that have been doing it for years. We long for the old Maestro days. Where the standard response was sorry, there is nothing we can do. Only 4 chargebacks, all with very strict & clear rules. You could not get them wrong..

Then Visa bribed their way in with throwing money @ banks to change to them. Then the fun started. Next was Mastercard bribing the banks to switch to them...

samcathe

Aylesbury_Duck said:

samcathe said:

A_Geordie 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. 
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.

I really don't care about my account being banned/blacklisted at this moment. All I want is a refund or replacement. I can't imagine paying for goods I am not using. It is really going to be a night mare.
Do you have any idea maybe my 7 years old son can be a witness in the court of law? My children were there when I opened the package. Because Police has come back to me to say they can't do anything since I have no witness or CCTV camera.
Although, I have not heard from my bank, they claim to get back to me within 7 days. I am just preparing myself for the worst case scenario. 
I have also read about small claims court. Is that an option I can consider as well? Thanks

You'd be prepared to put your seven year old son in court to testify about a stolen phone?  I think that's unnecessary.

This isn't going to get to a court like that.  If your bank can't help, then you need to send Amazon a letter before action, demanding the delivery of the phone you ordered or a refund, and giving them 14 days to do so.   If they don't respond as you'd like, then you commence the small claims process.  You'll have to pay £80 for the court fee and then await a court date.  It's not going to be a quick process, but Amazon may act before it gets that far.

I am not sure they are ready to act because they have stated clearly that I am free to seek a legal counsel. I will just wait to see if I can get any positive response from the bank. If not, I will keep going and make sure I see this to the end. 

1stTimer

I may be reading this wrong but you said on page 3 “ I have only paid the first instalment, but it’s really going to be a nightmare paying for something I am not using.”

so you haven’t paid for it in full yet?

samcathe

1stTimer said:

I may be reading this wrong but you said on page 3 “ I have only paid the first instalment, but it’s really going to be a nightmare paying for something I am not using.”

so you haven’t paid for it in full yet?

Yes. I will pay in 5 instalments.

robatwork

samcathe said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

samcathe said:

A_Geordie 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. 
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.

I really don't care about my account being banned/blacklisted at this moment. All I want is a refund or replacement. I can't imagine paying for goods I am not using. It is really going to be a night mare.
Do you have any idea maybe my 7 years old son can be a witness in the court of law? My children were there when I opened the package. Because Police has come back to me to say they can't do anything since I have no witness or CCTV camera.
Although, I have not heard from my bank, they claim to get back to me within 7 days. I am just preparing myself for the worst case scenario. 
I have also read about small claims court. Is that an option I can consider as well? Thanks

You'd be prepared to put your seven year old son in court to testify about a stolen phone?  I think that's unnecessary.

This isn't going to get to a court like that.  If your bank can't help, then you need to send Amazon a letter before action, demanding the delivery of the phone you ordered or a refund, and giving them 14 days to do so.   If they don't respond as you'd like, then you commence the small claims process.  You'll have to pay £80 for the court fee and then await a court date.  It's not going to be a quick process, but Amazon may act before it gets that far.

I am not sure they are ready to act because they have stated clearly that I am free to seek a legal counsel. I will just wait to see if I can get any positive response from the bank. If not, I will keep going and make sure I see this to the end. 

Certainly seems like a small claim will be your best option now. 

If it comes to it then it will be a case of you arguing your case together with any evidence (pictures, police report, packaging). You don't need witnesses. Then a representative of Amazon arguing their case. Then the judge deciding who he believes more. You don't really need legal advice, and it certainly isn't worth paying for given the value of the phone.

Likelihood is that Amazon will cave into your claim shortly before the case, or not bother defending. Keep this thread updated like so few seem to do. 

FWIW I agree with @Molerat about this being an organised theft perpetrated by people within the warehouse and logistics organisations. Not that amazon, the couriers or RM would ever admit to a problem.

samcathe

robatwork said:

samcathe said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

samcathe said:

A_Geordie 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. 
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.

I really don't care about my account being banned/blacklisted at this moment. All I want is a refund or replacement. I can't imagine paying for goods I am not using. It is really going to be a night mare.
Do you have any idea maybe my 7 years old son can be a witness in the court of law? My children were there when I opened the package. Because Police has come back to me to say they can't do anything since I have no witness or CCTV camera.
Although, I have not heard from my bank, they claim to get back to me within 7 days. I am just preparing myself for the worst case scenario. 
I have also read about small claims court. Is that an option I can consider as well? Thanks

You'd be prepared to put your seven year old son in court to testify about a stolen phone?  I think that's unnecessary.

This isn't going to get to a court like that.  If your bank can't help, then you need to send Amazon a letter before action, demanding the delivery of the phone you ordered or a refund, and giving them 14 days to do so.   If they don't respond as you'd like, then you commence the small claims process.  You'll have to pay £80 for the court fee and then await a court date.  It's not going to be a quick process, but Amazon may act before it gets that far.

I am not sure they are ready to act because they have stated clearly that I am free to seek a legal counsel. I will just wait to see if I can get any positive response from the bank. If not, I will keep going and make sure I see this to the end. 

Certainly seems like a small claim will be your best option now. 

If it comes to it then it will be a case of you arguing your case together with any evidence (pictures, police report, packaging). You don't need witnesses. Then a representative of Amazon arguing their case. Then the judge deciding who he believes more. You don't really need legal advice, and it certainly isn't worth paying for given the value of the phone.

Likelihood is that Amazon will cave into your claim shortly before the case, or not bother defending. Keep this thread updated like so few seem to do. 

FWIW I agree with @Molerat about this being an organised theft perpetrated by people within the warehouse and logistics organisations. Not that amazon, the couriers or RM would ever admit to a problem.

Thanks for the encouragement. Definitely I will make sure I push to the end and update the thread whenever I have any new information. I have kept both packaging as evidence.

powerful_Rogue

samcathe said:

1stTimer said:

I may be reading this wrong but you said on page 3 “ I have only paid the first instalment, but it’s really going to be a nightmare paying for something I am not using.”

so you haven’t paid for it in full yet?

Yes. I will pay in 5 instalments.

How are you actually paying for the phone? Was it a certain amount on debit card and the rest via Amazon finance?