John Lewis lost my item, and refuse to refund me

businesstime

Hi all,

I'm wondering if you could give me some advice.

So in November of 2023 I bought a Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 from John Lewis at a value of £249.00. It was a click and collect order via my local Waitrose. In October 2024 the watch developed a fault. I worked with John Lewis to get the watch repaired. Unfortunately the watch failed again within a couple of weeks, so I worked with John Lewis to get it repaired again. It then failed again within a couple of weeks, and I worked with John Lewis to get it repaired again. It then failed again within a couple of weeks and John Lewis agreed to refund the watch, at this point we're in January 2025. It's important to note that each time the watch was collected for repair I was asked my address and it was picked up and delivered from my current address.

Each of the times my watch was sent for repair, they only wanted the watch itself, not the charger, or the watch band, so when I sent it back to John Lewis for a refund (via dropping it off at a Waitrose), I sent it back the same way I had sent it back to them for repair, in the same packaging. This was on Thursday 30th January. On Sunday 2nd February, John Lewis emailed me to say they needed the watch band and charger. I emailed them on Tuesday 4th February asking for a QR code to return the items at Waitrose which they provided me with on Wednesday 5th February (my intention being to return the items on the Saturday). However on Friday 7th February I had a missed call from John Lewis. The missed call asked me to call them back to discuss my return. I then received a email within 10 minutes, advising me that my return had been cancelled as they couldn't get hold of me (not giving me a chance to return their call), and they would be returning my watch.

I rang within a couple of hours of getting that email, but by that time, I had a "computer says no" response about being able to cancel the cancellation. I was advised to wait for the return and then attempt the return again. Fine, frustrating, but fine.

Unfortunately though, for some reason unknown, and without involving or confirming with me, they decided to send the item to an old address of mine. Not the one I've been providing to pass their security checks, not the one I have been using for repairs. Then despite me not living there, and despite the picture showing the courier (DHL) just posted it through the letterbox, it was marked as signed for by me.

When I've queried this with John Lewis they have said that it was my fault the wrong address has been provided as that address is the one associated with my account. But, they cannot explain how in all the many calls I have had with John Lewis where I have been asked to confirm my identity and pass security, it has not been brought to my attention that the address I was confirming with is not the address that is on my account. John Lewis even acknowledged that the address on my case ticket with them matches my current address.

Despite all this, John Lewis are now saying they will not refund me, because they have returned the watch, and because I provided the address (which I didn't), they are not taking any responsibility and they consider the case closed. John Lewis was entrusted with my property and they didn't take due care and attention with who they sent it to. If I sent an item to someone, I would double check their address, if I sent money to someone I would double check their bank account details, John Lewis did not take any such care with my property. So I'm now without my (albeit faulty) watch, and without my £249.00. I feel like I've been robbed.

I am aghast at this appalling response. I don't understand why they're attempting to gaslight me into believing it's my fault. As I said, I have not provided them with my old address in all of my recent dealings with them, and they have picked up and delivered the watch for repairs, and accepted my address for security, so I had no reason to believe that my old address was linked to my account. This feels like a failure on multiple levels with John Lewis which they refuse to take responsibility for.

Unfortunately I don't know where to go from here, should I consider taking them to the Small Claims Court, is my case strong enough to win?

Thanks

Exodi

I (personally) think you'll struggle with this.

While it would be easy to imagine a small team of customer service people that spend all day communicating with each other, the reality is John Lewis is a multifaceted operation and will automate as much of their processes as possible, and I (personally) don't think it's unreasonable that the watch was returned to the account address by default.

The fact that you requested a repair to be delivered to a different address is wholly irrelevant in my opinion, as I could easily see the argument from the other side where a customer might be in a holiday let and requests an item is delivered to this temporary address, or click and collected at a store, or ordered something to be delivered to a friend. In these scenarios you can see why this customer would be aggrieved if John Lewis decided to started sending stuff to the last used delivery address, instead of the address the customer registered on the account. The account address implies permanence, whereas the delivery address does not.

I know you suggest they should be calling you up and double checking that your account details are correct, but consumers want low prices, and you don't get low prices by recruiting armies of customer service staff to call customers to double-triple-quadruple check their details are up to date, unfortunately. 

Is it possible to go to the old address?

A_Geordie

I disagree with Exodi's viewpoint based on what I've read.

Things that stand in your favour (in no particular order): 

1. Section 29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that the risk in the goods remains with the trader only until the goods come into the consumer's physical possession. I would argue this extends to collection of goods being repaired and returning of them as this section relates to a sales contract. 

2. Exodi's statement about the address that was used to return the watch after repairs as being irrelevant, is in my opinion, extremely relevant as it points to course of dealings but also evidence of your current residence. The actions of the JL employee is unreasonable asking you to contact them but then processing a return 10 minutes later allowing no opportunity to call back is contradictory to say the least. There is nothing in the CRA that says you have to return the goods within a certain time period and in any event there was a very short period between returning the watch and JL seeking to cancel the cancellation. It was reasonable to give an opportunity to return the remainder of the equipment but worse case, JL could have claimed a reduction of the refund if you failed to return all of the equipment that was in the box.

3. When you reject goods under the CRA, the contract is deemed to have been repudiated i.e. a serious breach and is treated as at an end by the consumer. JL cannot unilaterally change the legal position and 'uncancel' the contract, because that would be an attempt to contract out of the CRA which is unlawful under section 31 of the CRA. Nevertheless, when you cancelled the contract, ownership of the watch reverted back to JL and so sending the watch to an old address wouldn't affect your right to a refund. The employee has cost JL a watch and that's on the employee not understanding consumer rights law, not you. 

4. Not that it matters anyway but the courier marking the package as delivered and signed by you is false and deceitful. The onus will be on JL to prove you actually signed for it, which will be difficult if they already have correspondence of a different address. This issue is moot given what I've said in point 3 above.

For future reference, when you return faulty goods, you have to return everything you received unless the trader agrees otherwise. You don't get to keep some of the equipment that make up the whole of the goods and I think it's a pretty poor excuse to say that because the watch was the issue, you didn't think you had to send the accessories back as well. Those accessories formed part of the overall package which weren't in your possession before you purchased the watch, and it shouldn't remain in your possession when you return it back for a refund. 

Bear in mind the people you are corresponding with are low level employees and are just following policy. I reckon for the sake of spending £35 to issue a claim and potentially another £27 if you needed have a court hearing if the dispute wasn't resolved in time, John Lewis will likely fold and agree to pay up or replace the watch. The claim itself is on par with paying a paralegal roughly 2 hours work so unless JL handle this in-house, it will cost them way more than to settle. Take a punt, worst case you lose an extra £60 though if it reaches their lawyers, they should see sense.  

Suggest you also update your account address information if it has your previous address to avoid issues in the future.

sheramber

How much is a broken watch worth?

Exodi

A_Geordie said:

1. Section 29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that the risk in the goods remains with the trader only until the goods come into the consumer's physical possession. I would argue this extends to collection of goods being repaired and returning of them as this section relates to a sales contract. 

This gets brought up ad nauseam on this forum, and it gets pointed out ad nauseam that the significant majority of deliveries in the UK are not made into the consumer's physical possession (taken literally, as you have, even posting through the door or handing to the spouse would not be compliant). You can then go down the rabbit hole with this in pondering how, even if the courier did ensure they handed the letter/parcel to a physical person, they would need to confirm the recipient is the person named on the order. Perhaps the postman ID's everyone? Who knows, and to be honest, who cares because it ends up being a theoretical debate.

As is then pointed out when this circular debate begins, there is no evidence on this forum that anyone has successfully challenged a non-delivery on the grounds of the literal interpretation of s29 of the CRA.

A_Geordie

Exodi said:

A_Geordie said:

1. Section 29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that the risk in the goods remains with the trader only until the goods come into the consumer's physical possession. I would argue this extends to collection of goods being repaired and returning of them as this section relates to a sales contract. 

This gets brought up ad naseum on this forum, and it gets pointed out ad naseum that the significant majority of deliveries in the UK are not made into the consumer's physical possession (taken literally, as you have, even posted through the door would not be compliant). You can then go down the rabbit hole with this in pondering how, even if the courier did ensure they handed the letter/parcel to a physical person, they could confirm the recipient is the person named on the order. Perhaps they ID them? Who knows, and to be honest who cares.

As is then pointed out when this circular debate begins, there is no evidence on this forum that anyone has successfully challenged a non-delivery on the grounds of the literal interpretation of s29 of the CRA.

Well here's some evidence for you, I have successfully won on 3 separate occasions at court where deliveries have not physically come into my possession based on s29. In each case, the word 'physical' was taken to have its natural and ordinary meaning as per numerous Supreme Court decisions. Whether you or any other retailer likes it or not, the word was inserted deliberately into the legislation and therefore it must have some meaning attached to it (it could have been omitted and just left the word 'possession' instead). In those claims, each of the judges agreed. Perhaps the reason why there's no evidence on these forums is because it is plainly obvious what physical possession means and legal reps acting for retailers know that. 

Not sure why it is such a difficult concept to grasp and why perhaps certain people push against it, thinking it should have some entirely different meaning. Either you have taken physical possession or you haven't. There will likely be grey areas (your example of posting through a letterbox is definitely not one I would call a grey area) but I don't think there will be many, if any. 

Anyway, the delivery part is a moot point based on my other reasons. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Exodi said:
there is no evidence on this forum that anyone has successfully challenged a non-delivery on the grounds of the literal interpretation of s29 of the CRA.

Unfortunately there is evidence of very little as consumer issues are rarely raised to the higher courts and I've not seen an online resource where you can view transcripts from the lower courts. 

A lack of clarification through guidance either means it's to be interrupted narrowly or no one really knows as it's not been tested. 

Regarding the OP, if OP did indeed reject then JL need to refund as per:

(15)A refund under this section must be given without undue delay, and in any event within 14 days beginning with the day on which the trader agrees that the consumer is entitled to a refund.

which once they had the watch meant they should have inspected it and then refunded within 14 days.

They could have either asked for the other bits to be sent separately, deducted their value from the refund or sued OP for their value. I don't understand the point in returning the watch. 

sheramber said:

How much is a broken watch worth?

Value is a watch with 15 months use deducted rather than that of a broken one

businesstime

Thanks for your replies.

RE my address, I just want to point out that every single time I rang and was asked to give my address for security I gave them my current address. I have written proof of this from where I talked to their WhatsApp bot, everytime (but the last time after they returned the item interestingly) I passed the security checks, so with that, and the repairs coming to this address, I had no reasonable expectation to know that the address on my account was incorrect. I did ask how I could pass security with an apparently incorrect address, but because my address is one of the several addresses on my account (even if not the main one) that's apparently good enough? I'd argue that security should only pass on your main address. If I'd have failed any of my security, I'd have of course updated my address because it would have been brought to my attention, but it wasn't. I rarely order from John Lewis, so it's not something I would have noticed. My last order with them was this watch over a year ago.

Also they confirmed to me that the address on the ticket is my current address, one of the employees was surprised they sent it to my old address based on the ticket information.

I also feel like DHL refusing responsibility for it is a factor, because they faked my signature. If DHL accepted responsibility, John Lewis said they would have refunded me, but because DHL won't, John Lewis are refusing. I don't understand how they are able to pass off all their responsibilities to a third party, my dealings are with John Lewis not DHL.

I'm attempting to get in contact with the residents of my old address, unfortunately it's not close enough to pop by, so I'm sending a letter and hoping they're decent people and are happy to arrange to give it to me, but what do I do if they ignore me or refuse? Not that it's much use to them as its faulty.

Also just to be clear, I've been speaking with their escalated support team, they're the ones that have made the decision that they're not going to do anything.

businesstime

I also want to say I acknowledge my mistake in not returning the band and the charger. I didn't think, I just packaged it up in the same way I packaged up the return. Once brought to my attention they needed the charger and the band, I agreed and was making arrangements to return it, I accept responsibility for this, but they didn't give me enough time to return it. Less than a week since bringing it to my attention, and 2 days after providing me with a return label. That's not enough time.

Exodi

A_Geordie said:

Exodi said:

A_Geordie said:

1. Section 29 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that the risk in the goods remains with the trader only until the goods come into the consumer's physical possession. I would argue this extends to collection of goods being repaired and returning of them as this section relates to a sales contract. 

This gets brought up ad naseum on this forum, and it gets pointed out ad naseum that the significant majority of deliveries in the UK are not made into the consumer's physical possession (taken literally, as you have, even posted through the door would not be compliant). You can then go down the rabbit hole with this in pondering how, even if the courier did ensure they handed the letter/parcel to a physical person, they could confirm the recipient is the person named on the order. Perhaps they ID them? Who knows, and to be honest who cares.

As is then pointed out when this circular debate begins, there is no evidence on this forum that anyone has successfully challenged a non-delivery on the grounds of the literal interpretation of s29 of the CRA.

Well here's some evidence for you, I have successfully won on 3 separate occasions at court where deliveries have not physically come into my possession based on s29. In each case, the word 'physical' was taken to have its natural and ordinary meaning as per numerous Supreme Court decisions. Whether you or any other retailer likes it or not, the word was inserted deliberately into the legislation and therefore it must have some meaning attached to it. In those claims, each of the judges agreed. Perhaps the reason why there's no evidence on these forums is because it is plainly obvious what physical possession means and legal reps acting for retailers know that. 

Not sure why it is such a difficult concept to grasp and why perhaps certain people push against it, thinking it should have some entirely different meaning. Either you have taken physical possession or you haven't. There will likely be grey areas (your example of posting through a letterbox is definitely not one I would call a grey area) but I don't think there will be many, if any. 

Anyway, the delivery part is a moot point based on my other reasons. 

I'm not being led into the 17,274th time this debate has happened on this forum.

I would ask you not to be rude though, if it was so obvious and simple to grasp, this debate wouldn't come up again and again and again about whether physical possession means handed to a person (rendering the vast majority of deliveries in the UK non-compliant), or at the property, does leaving it on the driveway count, inside the porch, etc.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Exodi said:
there is no evidence on this forum that anyone has successfully challenged a non-delivery on the grounds of the literal interpretation of s29 of the CRA.

Unfortunately there is evidence of very little as consumer issues are raised to the higher courts and I've not seen an online resource where you can view transcripts from the lower courts. 

A lack of clarification through guidance either means it's to be interrupted narrowly or no one really knows as it's not been tested. 

Agreed, and it's why I was mentioning reference on this forum. Delivery issues get raised all the time, and the s29 argument gets raised all the time, but I can't remember a time any OP has later claimed success for it.

Of course some don't bother reporting the resolution of a thread, others will get cold feet going to court, etc but I genuinely can't think of a single time (until A_Geordie today that is).

These threads nearly always devolve into hypothetical debate, where one side links dictionary definitions of the word physical and accuses the other side of being dim or unable to read, and the other side point out that taken literally the significant majority of deliveries in the UK would be non-compliant.

I think it's more likely it's not been tested, or as often gets suggested, the vast majority of deliveries in the UK are indeed non-compliant, but as delivery issues are such a small minority, the cost of compliance would be far higher than mass non-compliance and refunding the minority that complain. The other suggestion that gets raised is the likelihood the legislation hasn't kept pace with modern society and e-commerce.

Maybe it's me, but I personally wouldn't suggest anyone challenges a delivery on the grounds of s29 (at least on it's own) until there is more consensus.

businesstime

sheramber said:

How much is a broken watch worth?

Value is a watch with 15 months use deducted rather than that of a broken one

So are you saying I can't claim the value of the full cost of the watch, despite being promised a full refund which has been withdrawn because they lost my watch? How much can I claim for? At one point is this just not economically worth me persuing? If they claim that the current value of the watch is say £50, then I'd not get any benefit after court fees?